Ban hate speech

ELECTIONS are fought dirtily, which is almost certainly a universal fact. Yet some elections can be dirtier than others and in Sri Lanka the issue of hate speech has become a serious one.

The situation has become so grave that Elections Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya cautioned political parties to cease and desist, pointing out they could be held in violation of the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act.  Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s campaign was squarely responsible for most of the hate speech, with speakers routinely highlighting issues from a racial angle.

For example, during the Naula rally last Sunday, former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva, who has returned to the Rajapaksa fold, discussed the Central Bank bond issue by focusing several times on Governor Arjuna Mahendran’s ethnicity. Another below-the-belt stance taken by them was to attempt ramping up anxiety over national security by focusing on the Tamil community’s quest for political rights as a case for separatism. 

Many also volley innuendoes at the Muslim community and posters are popping up bearing the slogan ‘No matter the party my vote is for a Sinhala Buddhist’. Fringe parties such as the Bodu Bala Sena are also not helping matters. The “modified” national flag stripped of its signature yellow and green stripes is increasingly displayed and has become a symbol for some political parties.

A consistently affable President Sirisena during a visit to Kilinochchi insisted he would create the environment for all people to enjoy their rights peacefully. Yet notwithstanding statements by Sirisena and Deshapriya as well as Cabinet approval for laws banning hate speech in April, the scourge refuses to abate. Hate speech is out and loud, particularly on social media and clearly has the capacity to do damage far beyond 17 August.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives, in the first study of hate speech disseminated by social media last year, warned it poses a range of other challenges to the Government and governance around social, ethnic, cultural and religious co-existence, diversity and, ultimately, to the very core of debates around how Sri Lankans see and organise themselves post-war.

The report also said it is evident that even without new legislation looking at online domains and content, there are a range of legal remedies and frameworks to hold perpetrators of hate speech accountable for their violence, whether verbal or physical. The issue is not the non-existence of relevant legal frameworks, but their non-application or selective application.

Even the Government, which was elected on many promises of resolving Sri Lanka’s ethnic divide, appears unable to take tough action to stem hate speech completely. This may be because such a move could be electorally viewed as suppressive by some voters and therefore polarise the debate even more, giving added power to extreme groups. Yet when major political parties use hate speech as a tool to promote blatantly racist policies, State machinery cannot remain silent.  

There is no easy or prescribed solution to hate speech in Sri Lanka, especially after years of it being normalised. But politicians leading ethnically-charged campaigns cause extensive damage for selfish, power-hungry agendas that are despicable. Many progressive thinking voters will identity and reject such politicians but if they return to power, neutralising the wider harm could very well be impossible.